UC-NRLF 


SB 


DO? 


SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ON 

THE  RECALL 


COMPILED  BY 
JULIA    E.    JOHNSEN 


MINNEAPOLIS 
THE  H.  W.  WILSON  COMPANY 


BRIEF 

Resolved,  that  all  elective  and  appointive  officials  should  be 
subject  to  recall. 

INTRODUCTION 

I.     The  question  is  important. 

A.  Efficient  administration  and  discharge  of  public  office 

is   intimately   related   to    our   sociological .  and   eco- 
nomic welfare. 

B.  Individual  and  collective  rights  are  involved. 

C.  Political  principles  are  at  stake. 
II.     It  is  generally  granted. 

A.  That  under  the  recall  a  sworn  petition  signed  by  a 

specified  number  of  qualified  voters  may  be  circu- 
lated to   retire   an   undesirable   official. 

B.  That   the    incumbent   must    then    contest    with    other 

nominated   candidates     in   special   election    for   the 
privilege  of  serving  out  the  remainder  of  his  term. 

C.  That  the  person  receiving  majority  vote  in  this  special 

election  assumes   office  until   the  expiration  of  the 
natural  term. 

III.     The  question  of  its  desirability  seems  to  present  four  main 
issues. 

A.  Do  we  need  it? 

B.  Is  it  otherwise  desirable? 

C.  Is  it  just? 

D.  Is  it  liable  to  abuse? 


AFFIRMATIVE 

I.     The  recall   is   needed. 

A.  There  has  been  much  dissatisfaction  with  officials  in 

the  past. 

1.  Inefficient  and  lax  administration  has  existed. 

2.  Corrupt    practices    have    prevailed. 

(a)  Valuable  franchises  and  rights  have  been 

given  away. 

(b)  Special  interests  have  been  served. 

(c)  Graft  has  flourished. 

3.  The  will  of  the  people  has  been  disregarded. 

B.  There    is    no    adequate    relief    from   evils    induced    by 

recreant  officials. 

1.  They  can  be  indicted  and  removed  only  under  the 

gravest   charges. 

2.  The  initiative  and  referendum  can  correct  only  a 

small  percent  of  specific  evils. 
II.     It  is  otherwise  desirable. 

A.  It  conforms  to  good  political  theory. 

1.  It  is  republican,   for 

(a)     It  brings  government  close  to  the  people. 

2.  It  is  constitutional. 

3.  It  is  not  essentially  different  from  other  political 

practices  of  our  country. 

(a)  Removals  by  impeachment. 

(b)  Removals  by  vote  of  legislative  bodies. 

(c)  Initiative  and  referendum. 

B.  It  conforms  to  good  business  theory. 

1.  It  gives  the  people  a  right  to  dismiss  an  undesir- 

able official,  a  right  that  is  possessed  by  every 
business  institution. 

2.  Its  mere  presence   is  a  corrective  of  evil. 

(a)  It  makes  officials  more  responsive  to  the 

people. 

(b)  It  makes  them  more  zealous  in  their  duty. 

(c)  It  makes  the  people  feel  more  responsible 

for  the  men  they  choose  to  office. 

C.  It  will  not  discourage  good  men  from  seeking  office. 

In  Los  Angeles  a  larger  percentage  of  good  men 


entered'  the  contest  after  the  installment  of  the 
recall  than  previously. 

III.  It  is  just. 

A.  The  percentage   required   for  recall   removes  chances 

of  unfairness  unless  petition  is  based  on  justice,  for 
i.     It  is  easier  to  secure  signatures  for  a  person  than 
against  him. 

B.  He  has  the  opportunity  of  vindicating  himself. 

IV.  It  is  not  liable  to  abuse. 

A.  People  will  usually  tolerate  abuse  for  a  considerable 

time  before  taking  measures  of   correction   against 
an  official. 

B.  Public   interest   will   discourage    displacement   just   as 

the  official  has  become  most  useful  in  his  office. 

C.  Similar  privileges  elsewhere  have  not  been  abused. 

i.  In  New  Jersey,  where  twenty-five  tax  payers  can 
petition  a  supreme  court  justice  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  commission  to  investigate  municipal 
and  county  affairs. 

NEGATIVE 

I.     The  recall  is  not  needed. 

A.  The   system   of  representative   government  is   not  at 

fault,    for 

i.  The  electors  are  responsible  for  the  character  of 
the  men  they  place  in  office.  v 

B.  We  have  adequate' means  of  relief  under  present  pro- 

visions. 

1.  In  impeachment. 

2.  In  publicity. 

3.  In  retirement  'at  end  of  lerm  of  office. 

4.  In   persecution    anc^  remevaf  for   malfeasance   in 

office. 
II.    It  is  not  otherwise  desirable. 

A.    It  does  not  conform  to  good  political  theory. 

i.     A  pure  democracy,  as  distinguished  from  a  repre- 
sentative democracy,  is  unsound, 
(a)     It  was  tried  in  Greece. 


(b)     It   is    not   essentially    different    from   mob 
law. 

2.  It  was  rejected  by  the  makers  of  the  constitution 

of  the  U.  S. 
B.     It  does  not  conform  to  good  business  theory. 

I.     It  would  obstruct  and  demoralize  administration, 
(a)     Officials  could  be  recalled  just  when  their 
experience    made    them    most    useful    to 
their  communities. 

.   2.     Removal   by   process   of   law  is   more   expeditious 
and  less  burdensome  to  tax-payers. 

3.  It  is  not  desirable  as  a  moral  deterrent. 

(a)  Men  capable  of  being  deterred  by  it  are 

unfit  for  office. 

(b)  It  will  encourage  demagogy. 

C.     It  will  discourage  good  men  from  seeking  office. 

1.  Men    will   hesitate  to   risk  their   reputations   in  a 

position  subject  to  recall. 

2.  Men    of    administrative    abilities    will   find    it    ob- 

noxious to  mix  in  politics  to  retain  office. 
III.     It  is  unjust. 

A.  The  method  of  removal  is  unfair. 

1.  He  is  handicapped  by  charges  preferred. 

2.  A  stronger  or  more  popular  candidate  may  receive 

majority  vote. 

3.  In   case   of   tie   vote    with   another   candidate   the 

incumbent  is  still  removed  from  office. 

B.  He  is  denied  vindication. 

1.  By  lawful  trial  which  shall  pass  on  the  question 

of  his  faithful  discharge  of  duties. 

2.  By  an  opportunity  to  justify  his  policies  by  results. 
IV.    It  is  liable  to  abuse. 

A.  In  times  of  excitement  it  will  be  used  without  due 

consideration. 

1.  It  was  so  used  to  recall  a  Tacoma  mayor  for  stop- 

ping a  prize  fight. 

2.  Popular  feeling  has  at  times  been  directed  against 

many  of  our  most  useful  public  leaders. 

B.  It  will  play  into  the  hands  of  politicians. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


GENERAL  REFERENCES 

A    star    (*)    preceding    a    reference    indicates    that    the    entire 
article  or  a  part  of  it  has  been  reprinted  in   this  pamphlet. 

Folk,  Joseph  W.  Governor's  Message  to  the  Missouri  Legis- 
lature, 44th  General  Assembly.  (Extra  Session)  Jefferson 
City,  Mo.  1907.  pp.  9-10. 

Mechem,  Floyd  R.  Treatise  on  the  Law  of  Public  Offices  and 
Officers,  pp.  445-67.  Chicago.  1890. 

Wilcox,  Delos  F.  Local  Government.  Review  of  Legislation, 
1003 :  pp.  vi-v5.  New  York  State  Library.  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Wilcox,  Delos  F.  Local  Government.  Review  of  Legislation, 
1905,  pp.  195-6.  New  York  State  Library.  Albany,  N.  Y. 

American  Political  Science  Review.  5:  248-9.  My.  'n.  Recall  in 
California.  S.  Gale  Lowrie. 

National  Conference  for  Good  City  Government.  1908 :  223-46. 
Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  American  Cities.  Robert 
Treat  Paine,  Jr. 

Public.  14:  488-9,  My.  26,  'n.  Recall  in  Tacoma.  *Joe  Smith. 

*Yale  Review.  18:  206-9.  Ag.  '09.  Recall.  Margaret  A.  Schaffner. 

AFFIRMATIVE  REFERENCES 

La  Follette,   Robert  M.   Governor's   Message   to  the  Wisconsin 

Legislature,  47th  Regular  Session,  1905.  Madison,  Wis.  1905. 

pp.  79-8i. 
^National   Conference   for  Good  City   Government.   New   York. 

1905:   103-7.  Municipal  Progress  in  Los  Angeles.  Charles  D. 

Willard. 
*Xational  Conference  for  Good  City  Government.  Atlantic  City. 

1006:  382-7.  Recall  as  a  Measure  of  Control  by  the  People. 
National   Conference  for  Good   City  Government.   1909:  326-33. 

Recall  in  Los  Angeles.  Fielding  J.  Stilson. 


National   Municipal   League.   Proceedings,   1906,  p.  382-7.  Recall 

as  a  measure  of  control  by  the  people.  Thomas  A.  Davis. 
American  Lawyer.    14:    108-15.    Mr.   '06.   Election  Reforms:  the 

Trend  Towards  Democracy.  J.  C.  Ruppenthal. 
Arena.    28:    470.    N.    '02.    Needed    Political    Reforms.    Eltweed 

Pomeroy. 
*Arena.  33:  51-2.  Ja.  '05.  Recall  of  J.  P.  Davenport,  Los  Angeles. 

Eltweed  Pomeroy. 

Arena.  36:  45-6.  Jl.  '06.  Recall.  Eltweed  Pomeroy. 
*Arena.  41  :  494-5.  Jl.  '09.  Recall.  Roger  Sherman  Hoar. 

Same.   Equity  Series.   11:    79-80.    July,   1909. 

Chautauquan.  41 :    199.    My.   '05.   Recall  in   American   Politics. 
City  Hall.  8:  17-25.  Jl.  '07.  Des  Moines  Plan  of  City  Government 
City  Hall.  10:  343-4.  Ap.  '09.  Three  Mayors  in  Three  Weeks. 
City  Hall.  10:  383-4.  My.  '09.  Recall  is  Spreading. 
*City  Hall.  12:  173-4.  O.  '10.  Recall. 
*Equity  Series.  9:  4-6.  Jl.  '07.  Recall  in  Los  Angeles.  John  R. 

Haynes. 

*Equity    Series,    n:    79-80.   Jl.    '09.    Advantages   of    the    Recall. 
Roger  Sherman  Hoar. 
Same.    Arena.    41:    494-5.    Jl.    '09. 
Independent.  58:  69-71.  Ja.  12,  '05.  First  Discharge  of  a  Public 

Servant.   Eltweed   Pomeroy. 
Independent.  66:  432-3.  F.  25,  '09.  Recall  of  the  Mayor  of  Los 

Angeles. 
Independent.  66 :  861-3.  Ap.  22,  '09.  Recall  of  the  Mayor  of  Los 

Angeles.  Reynold  E.  Blight. 

Independent.  70:  1075-6.  My..  18,  'u.  Checks  and  Balances. 
La  Follette's.  2:  7-8,  17.  N.  12,  '10.  Recall  in  Action. 
Outlook.  89:  831-2.  Ag.   15,  '08.  Experiments  in  Democracy. 
Outlook.  91 :  757-8.  Ap.  3,  '09.  Housecleaning  in  Los  Angeles. 
Outlook.  97:  295.  F.  u,  'n.  Seattle  Recall. 
Outlook.  97:  375*-6*.  F.  25,  'n.  Recall  in  Seattle. 
Outlook.  97:  947.  Ap.  29,  'n.  Mayor  Seymour  of  Tacoma. 
Outlook.  98:  697-8.  Jl.  29,  'n.  Recall  in  Texas. 
^Pacific    Monthly.    17:    455-60.    Ap.    '07.    How    Seattle    Got    the 

Recall.  Adella  M.  Parker. 
Public.  12:  513.  My.  28,  '09.  Use  of  the  Recall. 
Public.  14:  151-2.  F.  17,  'n.  Recall  in  Seattle.  Joe  Smith. 
Survey.  25:  879.  F.  25,  'n.  Recall  of  the  Seattle  Mayor. 

10 


NEGATIVE  REFERENCES 

*America.  5:   198-9.  Je.  19,  'n.  Recall.   Henry  Woods. 
*American  City.  4:  275.  Je.  'n.  Menace  of  the  Recall. 
*Century.  82:  624-5.  Ag.  'n.  Recall  of  Judges  a  Rash  Experiment. 
*Christian  Science  Monitor.  My.  26,  'n.  Possible  Abuse  of  the 
Recall. 


RECALL  OF  JUDGES 

AFFIRMATIVE  REFERENCES 

Congressional  Record.  46:  4627-32.   Mr.   14,  'u.  Recall.  Robert 

L.  Owen. 
Congressional  Record.  47:   382,   388-90.   Ap.  20,  'u.  George  E. 

Chamberlain. 
Congressional  Record.     27:   1466-7.  My.  22,  'u.  Recall.  George 

W.  Norris. 
Congressional  Record.  47:   1498-9.   My.  23,  'n.   Recall.   Charles 

A.  Lindbergh. 
Congressional  Record.  47:   1499-1500.  My.  23,  '11.   Recall.  Wm. 

D.  Stephens. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  1502-3.  My.  23,  'n.  C.  A.  Lindbergh. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  1565-6.  My.  26,  'n.  Dick  T.  Morgan. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  1612-3:  1616-20.  My.  29,  'n.  Scott 

Ferris. 

Congressional  Record.  47:   1669-77.  Je.  I,  'n.  Rufus  Hardy. 
Congressional  Record.  47:   1732-6.  Je.  5,  'n.     Fred  S.  Jackson. 
Congressional  Record.  47:   3687-3705.   Ag.  4,   'n.   Election   and 

Recall  of  Federal  Judges.  Robert  L.   Owen. 
Congressional    Record.     47:    3826-7.    Ag.   7,   'u.    Application   of 

Recall  to  Judiciary.  Jonathan  Bourne. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  4037-8.  Ag.  12,  'n.  Moses  E.  Clapp. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  4U7-47.  Ag.  15,  'u.  Miles  Poindexter. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  4283-5.  Ag.  18,  '11.  Recall.  R.  L. 

Owen. 
Congressional   Record.   47:   4288-91.   Ag.    18,   'n.   Recall.   T.  J- 

Walsh. 

ii 


Congressional  Record.  47:  4507-8.  Ag.  21,  'n.  Veto  and  the  Re- 
call. John  A.  Martin. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  4510-4.  Ag.  21,  'n.  James  A.  Reed. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  4516-8.  Ag.  21,  'n.  Clement  C.  Dickin- 
son. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  4553-4-  Ag.  22,  'n.  James  S.  Daven- 
port. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  4574-83.  Ag.  22,  'n.  John  E.  Raker. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  4634-6.  Ag.  25,  'n.  Benjamin  F. 
Shively. 

Literary  Digest.  42:  1086-7.  Je.  3,  fn.  Recalling  the  Recall.  Sym- 
posium. 

Outlook.  98:  378-9.  Je.  24,  'n.  Arizona  and  the  Recall  of  the 
Judiciary.  T.  Roosevelt. 

Public.  14:  146-7.  F.  17,  'n.-  Recall  of  Judges. 

Public.  14:  482-3.  My.  26,  'ii.  Recall  for  Judges. 

Public.  14:  629-30.  Jl.  7,  'n.  Recall  of  Judges.  W.  G.  Stewart. 

Public.  14:  817-8.  Ag.  n,  *ii.  Recall  of  Judges. 

Public.  14:  867.  Ag.  25,  'n.  Recall.    * 

NEGATIVE   REFERENCES 

""Congressional   Record.  46:   4171-2.    Mr.   3,   '11.   Representative 

Government.     Charles  F.  Scott. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  1429-34.  My.  22,  'n.  Constitution  of 

New  Mexico  and  Arizona  and  the  Recall  of  Judges.  Edward 

L.  Hamilton. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  1496-8.  My.  23,  'u.  Samuel  W.  Me- 

Call. 

Congressional  Record.  47:   1501-2.  My.  23,  'n.  Swagar  Sherley. 
Congressional  Record.  47:   1537-45.  My.  25,  'n.  Julius   Kahn. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  1556.  My.  25,  'n.  Marlin  E.  Olmsted. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  1600-1.  My.  29,  'n.  Bird  McQuire. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  1607-8.  My.  29,  'n.  Edgar  D.  Crum- 

packer. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  2474-8.  Je.  23,  'n.  Recall  of  Judges. 

Charles  E.  Pickett. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  2620-28.  Je.  27,  'n.  Moses  P.  Kinkaid. 
Congressional  Record.  47:  3801-4.  Ag.  7,  'n.  Recall.  Elihu  Root. 

12 


Congressional  Record.  47 :  3835-48.  Ag.  8,  'n.  Coe  I.  Crawford. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  3854.  Ag.  8,  'u. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  3917-23.  Ag.  9,  'n.  On  the  Recall  of 

Judges.     Knute  Nelson. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  3958-64.  Ag.  10,  'u.  William  E.  Borah. 
Congressional   Record.   47:    4111-3.    Ag.   15,   'u.   Veto   Message. 

Wm.  H.  Taft. 
Congressional  Record.  47:   4279-83.  Ag.   18,  'n.  Recall.  W.  B. 

Heyburn. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  4514-6.  Ag.  21,  'n.  Paul  Rowland. 
*Independent.  70:  1135.  Je.  i,  'u.  Recall  of  Judges. 
Literary  Digest.  42:  990.  My.  20,  '11.  Woodrow  Wilson  on  the 

Recall. 
North  American.  193:  672-90.  My.  'u.  Recall  of  Judges.  Albert 

Fink. 

Outlook.  98:  852-3.  Ag.  19,  '11.  Folly  of  the  Recall. 
Outlook.  98:  912-4-  Ag.  26,  '11.  Statehood  Veto. 


REPRINTS 

Yale   Review.   18:  206-9.  August,   1909. 
Recall.     Margaret  A.  Schaffner. 

The  recent  use  of  the  recall  in  Los  Angeles  has  brought 
into  view  an  interesting  parallelism  in  legislation.  The  charter 
provision  of  Los  Angeles  is  so  like  the  cantonal  law  of  Schaff- 
hausen  for  the  recall  of  officials  that  it  seems  to  have  been 
modeled  after  the  old  Swiss  system. 

The  similarity  between  the  two  laws  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  generally  noted.  In  discussing  the  recall  provision  of 
Los  Angeles  before  the  National  Municipal  League  in  1905, 
a  certain  publicist  maintained  that  the  recall  did  not  exist  "in 
Switzerland  .  .  .  nor  in  Australia;  nor,  as  far  as  we  know, 
anywhere  else  on  the  globe."  He  hailed  this  feature  of  the 
Los  Angeles  charter  as  "extraordinary  and  entirely  unique." 
In  1907  another  publicist  described  the  recall  as  "a  govern- 
mental measure  which  Los  Angeles  has  the  proud  distinction  of 
being  the  first  community  in  the  world  to  adopt."  With 
such  declarations  in  view  it  is  interesting  to  turn  the  pages 
of  cantonal  laws,  generations  old,  and  to  read  sections  of  Swiss 
recall  provisions  which  have  been  transcribed  with  almost 
literal  exactness  into  the  municipal  charters  of  many  American 
cities. 

A  comparison  of  the  recall  provision  of  Los  Angeles  with 
the  cantonal  law  of  Schaffhausen  is  of  special  interest  because 
the  measure  which  Los  Angeles  first  secured  in  1903  has 
served  as  a  model  for  most  of  the  subsequent  enactments  in  this 
country,  while  the  present  Schaffhausen  law  has  a  well  authen- 
ticated history  of  revisions  which  seem  to  reach  back  to  the 

14 


time  of  the  customary  Larrdsgemeinden,  when  the  people  exer- 
cised the  right  of  election  and  of  recall  directly  under  the 
customary  law. 

The  salient  features  of  the  two  laws  are  very  similar.  This 
is  true  not  only  as  regards  the  scope  of  the  recall,  the 
procedure  for  the  petition,  the  method  of  conducting  the  re- 
moval election,  and  the  tenure  of  office  of  the  newly-elected 
officials,  but  also  there  is  a  marked  similarity  in  such  minor 
details  as  the  requirements  for  the  contents  of  the  petition, 
the  qualifications  of  signers,  the  verification  of  signatures,  the 
filing  and  the  examination  of  the  petition,  the  provisions  for 
amendment  in  case  of  insufficiency,  and  the  transmission  of  the 
petition  to  some  responsible  body  authorized  to  call  a  removal 
election  if  the  petition  be  found  sufficient. 

Briefly  summarized,  the  procedure  in  the  Schaffhausen  law 
provides  that  all  demands  for  carrying  out  the  popular  right 
of  recall  must  be  presented  to  the  Executive  Council  in  the 
form  of  written  petitions  signed  by  at  least  one  thousand 
qualified  voters  of  the  canton.  The  petitions  may  be  entire 
or  in  sections,  and  in  the  latter  case,  the  separate  sections 
may  not  contain  signatures  from  different  communes.  The 
qualifications  of  each  signer  of  the  petition  must  be  certified 
by  the  president  of  the  Communal  Council  of  the  commune  in 
which  the  elector  lives.  Petitions  which  do  not  have  the 
required  number  of  signatures  are  to  be  returned  at  once 
with  the  statement  that  they  are  insufficient,  but  such  petitions 
may  be  established  if  the  lack  is  made  good  within  the 
required  time.  Official  publication,  is  to  be  made  of  the  receipt 
of  the  first  section  of  the  petition  and  the  required  number 
of  signatures  must  be  presented  within  sixty  days  after  the 
receipt  of  the  first  section  was  officially  announced.  At  the 
close  of  the  specified  time  during  which  signatures  may  be 
legally  added,  the  Executive  Council  is  required  to  ascertain 
whether  the  number  of  signatures  is  sufficient  and  is  to  make 
official  publication  of  the  result  of  the  examination.  If  the 
petition  is  found  to  contain  one  thousand  or  more  signatures, 
the  Executive  Council  is  required  to  order  a  removal  election 
within  thirty  days  after  the  close  of  the  period  for  completing 
the  petition.  If  a  legal  demand  for  the  recall  of  the  Great 
Council  and  a  similar  one  for  the  recall  of  the  Executive 

15 


Council  are  pending  at  the  same  time,  the  former  one  is  to  be 
adjusted  first. 

Under  the  charter  amendment  of  Los  Angeles  the  petition 
demanding  a  recall  must  contain  a  general  statement  of  the 
grounds  for  which  the  removal  is  sought,  must  be  signed  by 
at  least  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  qualified  electors,  and  upon 
completion,  must  be  filed  with  the  city  clerk.  The  petition 
may  be  in  sections,  but  one  of  the  signers  of  each  paper  is 
required  to  certify  that  the  statements  of  the  petition  are  true 
and  that  the  signatures  are  genuine.  If  upon  examination  by 
the  city  clerk  it  is  found  that  the  petition  does  not  have  the 
requisite  number  of  signatures,  it  may  be  amended  within  the 
specified  time,  or  a  new  petition  may  be  filed.  If  the  petition 
is  found  to  be  sufficient  the  clerk  must  submit  it  to  the  city 
council  without  delay,  and  the  Council  is  required  to  order 
a  removal  election  in  not  less  than  thirty  nor  more  than  forty 
days  from  the  date  of  the  clerk's  certificate  that  a  sufficient 
petition  is  filed. 

These  comparisons  might  be  extended  to  further  provisions 
of  the  two  laws.  In  a  number  of  sections  the  parallelism 
is  so  marked  that,  when  the  proper  substitutions  for  official 
terms  are  made,  a  substantially  similar  procedure  is  found  in 
the  Schaffhausen  practice,  followed  for  generations,  and  the 
Los  Angeles  method,  seemingly  so  "unique"  and  "extraordinary." 

And  yet  it  were  scarcely  necessary  to  search  the  annals 
of  old  Schaffhausen  nor  to  read  her  written  laws  to  "discover" 
a  political  institution  as  old  as  the  recall.  Our  own  history 
furnishes  an  example  of  the  practice  when  the  delegates  to 
the  Continental  Congress  from  Pennsylvania  were  recalled  be- 
cause they  refused  to  sign  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
other  delegates  were  sent  in  their  stead  to  carry  out  the  imper- 
ative mandate  of  the  people.  Of  still  greater  significance  in  the 
evolution  of  the  recall  is  the  parliamentary  custom  developed 
in  England  by  which  Parliament  is  dissolved  and  the  members 
go  back  to  the  people  and  a  new  Parliament  is  formed.  These 
various  political  institutions,  some  old  in  time,  some  seem- 
ingly new,  seem  to  indicate  that  "representative  government" 
may  yet  perfect  a  system  under  which  "representatives"  will 
really  "represent"  their  constituents. 

16 


National  Conference  for  Good  City   Government.   1906:  pp. 

382-7. 

Recall  as  a  Measure  of  Control  by  the  People. 
Thomas  A.  Davis. 

In  the  United  States  we  have  been  for  many  years  under 
the  impression  that  all  our  municipalities,  counties  and  states 
were  governed  by  the  people,  through  their  duly  elected  or 
appointed  representatives.  Of  late  years  this  impression  has  been 
shattered,  and  we  have  been  forced  to  the  inevitable  conclusion 
that  while  the  people  go  through  the  formality  of  electing 
representatives,  in  whose  hands  the  reins  of  government  are 
intrusted,  in  many  cases  these  representatives,  shortly  after 
assuming  the  duties  of  office  forget  that  they  are  responsible  to 
the  people  whom  they  are  supposed  to  represent  and  yield  to 
corrupting  influences  and  betray  their  trusts  with  far  more 
ease  than  can  be  credited. 

Before  election  candidates  as  a  usual  thing  are  profuse 
with  promises,  but  it  is  remarkable  how  quickly  after  being 
elected  these  promises  are  forgotten  and  how  the  wishes 
of  the  people  are  thrown  to  the  winds.  Instead  of  conducting 
municipal,  county  and  state  governments  for  the  people,  in 
many  cases  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  members 
of  these  public  bodies  elected  by  the  people  even  sit  there 
as  the  paid  representatives  of  private  interests,  while  the 
public  treasury  is  looked  upon  as  the  proper  thing  to  be 
robbed  and  plundered. 

As  a  usual  thing  candidates  are  elected  or  appointed  to 
public  office  for  terms  ranging  from  one  to  five  years.  After 
they  have  been  inducted  into  the  office,  no  matter  how  shame- 
ful or  degrading  their  conduct  may  be,  there  is  not  at  the 
present  time  any  adequate  manner  in  which  the  public  can 
call  to  account  an  erring  public  servant.  The  public  servant 
becomes  the  public  master,  for  the  balance  of  his  term,  and 
in  many  cases  we  have  seen  these  acts  of  a  man  committed 
during  his  term  forgotten  when  his  term  is  about  to  expire, 
and  the  person  re-elected  to  the  office  with  perhaps  an  in- 
creased majority.  Of  course  such  an  occurrence  as  this  is 
due  to  the  apathy  and  indifference  of  the  electors  and  so 

17 


long  as  they  are  willing  to  remain  in  that  state,  they  probably 
get  about  as  good  government  as  they  deserve. 

If  a  man  employs  an  agent  for  a  term  of  years  by  con- 
tract, and  that  agent  betrays  his  principal,  the  principal  may 
terminate  the  contract  and  get  rid  of  the  faithless  one.  Of- 
fice holders  stand  in  the  same  position  to  the  public  as  the 
agent  does  to  the  principal.  They  are  simply  the  instru- 
ments for  carrying  on  the  business  of  the  public,  and  if  they 
are  faithless  in  performing  their  duties  the  law  should  provide 
adequate  means  for  getting  rid  of  them  and  putting  others  in 
their  places.  *  *  * 

The  Recall  is  a  method  by  which  it  is  possible  for  the 
public  to  free  itself  from  incompetent  and  objectionable  officials. 
In  the  consideration  of  it  here  the  first  question  naturally 
would  be,  Do  we  need  it?  It  would  appear  to  me  to  be 
unnecessary  to  go  into  any  extended  argument  to  convince 
all  present  and  all  who  are  not  present  that  if  the  Recall 
will  do  what  the  provisions  that  I  have  stated  allege,  then  we 
undoubtedly  need  it  and  need  it  very  badly,  and  have  needed 
it  for  a  great  many  years.  Probably  there  are  very  few 
here  present  who  have  followed  municipal,  county  and  state 
affairs  in  New  Jersey  who  do  not  now  conclude  that  had  we 
the  Recall  in  New  Jersey  in  years  gone  by,  and  if  things  then 
happened  that  have  happened,  the  law  would  certainly  have 
had  to  work  overtime.  Without  particularizing  instances,  we 
can  recall  to  our  minds  cases  within  our  knowledge  where 
the  people  of  our  own  neighborhoods  would  have  welcomed  it, 
in  order  to  rid  themselves  of  officials  not  only  incompetent, 
but  whom  we  believe  to  have  yielded  to  the  corrupting  in- 
fluence of  money. 

The  next  question  that  might  be  asked  is,  Is  Recall  fair 
to  official  and  people?  In  Los  Angeles  twenty-five  percent 
of  the  entire  vote  for  an  office  is  required  to  be  signed  to  a 
petition  before  the  machinery  of  Recall  can  be  set  in  operation. 
Considering  the  fact  that  for  an  ordinary  office  there  may  be 
from  three  to  six  candidates  this  percentage  would  certainly 
seem  to  be  large  enough  to  remove  the  suspicion  of  unfairness 
because  it  is  far  easier  to  get  a  man  to  sign  a  petition  for  a 
person  than  it  is  to  get  him  to  sign  one  against  a  person. 
Were  the  Recall  adopted  in  New  Jersey  the  percentage  might 

18 


not  be  fixed  at  twenty-five  per  cent;  it  might  be  more  or  it 
might  be  less.  So  far  as  the  incumbent  is  concerned,  after 
the  petition  is  filed  against  him  he  still  has  the  opportunity  under 
the  method  of  procedure  to  vindicate  himself,  and  if  he  makes 
no  move  at  all  the  law  orders  him  put  upon  the  ticket  as 
a  candidate  for  reelection.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  the 
provisions  are  equitable  in  attempting  to  take  care  of  both 
accused  and  accuser. 

Query  might  be  made,  Is  it  not  likely  that  the  right  to 
petition  might  be  abused  and  petitions  filed  without  just  cause? 
I  think  we  can  safely  say  there  would  be  no  danger  of  abuse 
of  the  right  to  petition.  The  experience  of  those  familiar 
with  municipal  bodies  is,  that  even  now  the  people  of  a  neighbor- 
hood may  tolerate  an  abuse  of  their  rights  for  a  considerable 
time  before  petitioning  their  local  governing  bodies  for  a  cor- 
rection of  the  abuse.  Again,  if  the  percentage  of  the  electors 
required  to  sign  is  made,  for  example,  twenty-five  per  cent, 
it  would  be  impossible  to  procure  such  a  number  of  signers, 
unless  the  petition  was  based  upon  justice.  Publicity  and 
public  opinion  are  the  great  influences  in  our  country  today, 
and  when  the  movement  to  put  into  operation  the  machinery 
of  Recall  is  begun,  it  must  receive  the  approval  of  the  people 
or  it  will  absolutely  fail. 

We  have  in  the  State  of  New  Jersey  today  a  law  which 
permits  a  small  number  of  taxpayers  (twenty-five)  to  petition 
a  Supreme  Court  Justice  for  the  appointment  of  a  commis- 
sioner to  investigate  municipal  and  county  affairs.  The  number 
of  signers  required  is  so  small  that  it  might  be  easily  abused, 
yet  all  we  have  to  do  is  to  read  the  newspaper  accounts  of 
such  investigations  to  be  convinced  that  in  every  case  where 
application  was  made  and  a  commissioner  appointed,  the  in- 
vestigation should  have  been  made. 

There  is  one  provision  of  the  Los  Angeles  plan  which,  to 
my  mind,  should  be  enlarged  upon.  *  *  *  The  Los  Angeles  plan 
apparently  applies  only  to  elective  officials.  I  can  see  no  good 
reason  *  *  why  the  officials  affected  should  not  be  municipal, 
county  and  state  officials,  both  elective  and  appointive. 

In  the  municipalities  today  there  are  very  few  officials 
elected  outside  of  the  mayor,  the  governing  body,  and  the 

19 


board  of  education.  Practically  all  the  other  officials,  such  as 
assessors,  tax  commissioners,  fire  commissioners,  police  com- 
missioners, boards  of  health,  boards  of  assessment,  and  city 
officials  are  appointed  either  by  the  mayor  or  the  governing 
body,  while  in  the  counties  and  state  there  are  innumerable 
boards  and  officers  that  are  not  elected  at  all,  but  are  appointed 
by  an  officer  or  a  body,  which  is  itself  elected.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  Recall  should  not  stop  as  in  Los  Angeles  at  elective 
officers,  but  all  officers,  boards  or  bodies,  whether  elective  or 
appointive,  should  be  amenable  to  the  public  and  it  should  be 
within  the  power  of  the  people  to  call  them  to  task  whenever 
their  conduct  justifies  it. 

The  method  of  procedure  outlined  in  the  Los  Angeles  stat- 
ute covers  the  point  as  to  elective  municipal  officers.  Of 
course,  if  we  go  beyond  this  and  embrace  municipal,  county 
and  state  officials,  elective  and  appointive,  the  modus  oper- 
andi  would  have  to  be  framed  to  suit  the  case. 

It  is  rather  difficult  to  say,  without  discussion  and  con- 
sideration, what  method  of  procedure  should  be  adopted  to 
bring  the  provisions  of  recall  to  bear  upon  an  appointive 
officer.  The  Los  Angeles  provisions  will  not  apply.  This  is  a 
question  that  might  well  be  discussed  until  a  proper  plan  is 
adopted,  if  the  suggestion  appears  to  be  a  proper  one.  It 
seems  to  me  that  in  the  case  of  an  appointive  officer  the 
petition  to  be  signed  by  a  certain  percentage  or  number  of 
taxpayers  should  be  presented  to  the  appointing  power  in 
the  shape  of  charges,  and  the  appointing  power  should  either 
place  the  accused  on  trial  before  itself  upon  the  charges,  or 
appoint  a  commission  outside  of  its  own  number  to  hear 
the  charges  and  conduct  the  trial.  If  the  accused  is  found 
guilty  that  should  terminate  his  right  to  hold  the  office,  and 
if  not  guilty  he  should  continue  therein. 

Congressional  Record.  47:  4574-83.  August  22,  1911. 
John  E.  Raker. 

The  initiative,  the  referendum,  and  the  recall  are  closely 
connected  parts  of  the  same  political  theory.  The  people  elect 
their  representatives.  If  those  representatives  do  not  carry  out 

20 


the  will  of  the  people,  then  the  people  initiate  legislation.  If 
their  representatives  transgress  the  will  of  the  people,  then  the 
people,  through  the  referendum,  repeal  the  laws  which  their 
representatives  have  made.  This  is  no  more  or  less  than  the 
recall  applied  to  the  laws,  and  if  not  unrepublican  in  form  here 
can  not  be  considered  unrepublican  when  applied  to  the  inter- 
preters of  the  laws.  *  *  * 

The  question  *  *  *  whether  the  initiative,  the  referendum, 
and  the  recall  are  consistent  with  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment *  *  *  makes  it  important  that  we  ascertain  what  is  meant 
by  a  republican  form  of  government.  It  is  an  expression  which 
all  assume  to  understand,  yet,  judging  from  many  unsuccessful 
attempts  of  eminent  statesmen  and  writers  to  give  it  a  clear 
meaning,  it  would  seem  that  the  phrase  is  not  susceptible  of 
precise  definition.  Speaking  of  the  constitutions  of  the  differ- 
ent States  this  question  has  been  well  expressed. 

In  Kiernan  v.  the  City  of  Portland  the  decision  was: 

If  we  resort  for  a  criterion  to  the  different  principles  on  which 
different  forms  of  government  are  established,  we  may  define  a  re- 
public to  be,  or  at  least  may  bestow  that  name  on,  a  government 
which  derives  all  its  powers  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  great 
body  of  the  people,  and  is  administered  by  persons  holding  their 
offices  during  pleasure  for  a  limited  period  or  during  good  behavior. 
It  is  essential  to  such  government  that  it  be  derived  from  the 
great  body  of  society,  not  from  any  inconsiderable  portion  of  a 
favored  class  of  it.  Another  and  more  pointed  definition  by  Mr. 
Justice  Wilson,  a  member  of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  who 
but  a  short  time  after  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  in 
adverting  to  what  is  meant  by  a  republican  form  of  government, 
remarked:  "As  a  citizen  I  know  the  government  of  that  State 
(Georgia)  to  be  republican,  and  my  short  definition  of  such  a  gov- 
ernment is  one  constructed  on  this  principle,  that  the  supreme 
power  resides  in  the  body  of  the  people."  That  is  to  say,  any 
government  in  which  the  supreme  power  resides  with  the  people 
is  republican  in  form. 

Measured  in  the  light  of  the  above  it  is  difficult  to  conceive 
of  any  system  of  lawmaking  coming  nearer  to  the  great  body  of 
the  people  of  the  entire  State,  or  by  those  comprising  the  various 
municipalities,  than  that  now  coming  into  use  here,  and  so  we 
are  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  the  adoption  and  use  of  this  sys- 
tem can  be  held  a  departure  from  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment. It  was  the  effort  to  escape  the  oppression  resulting  from 
governments  controlled  by  the  select  few,  so  often  ruling  under 
the  assumption  that  "might  makes  right,"  that  gave  birth  to  re- 
publics. Monarchial  rulers  refuse  to  recognize  their  accountability 
to  the  people  governed  by  them.  In  a  republic  the  converse  is 
the  rule.  The  tenure  of  office  may  be  for  a  short  or  a  long  period, 
or  even  for  life,  yet  those  in  office  are  at  all  times  answerable, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  people,  and  in  proportion  to 
their  responsibility  to  those  for  whom  they  may  be  the  public 
agents,  and  the  nearer  the  power  to  enact  the  laws  and  control 
public  servants  lies  with  the  great  body  of  the  people,  the  more 
nearly  does  a  government  take  unto  itself  the  form  of  a  republic — 

21 


not  in  name  alone,  but  in  fact.  From  this  it  follows  that  each 
republic  may  differ  in  its  political  system  or  in  the  jjolitical  ma- 
chinery by  which  it  moves,  but  so  long  as  the  ultimate  control 
of  its  officials  and  affairs  of  state  remain  in  its  citizens,  it  will 
in  the  eye  of  all  the  republics  be  recognized  as  a  government  of 
that  class.  Of,  this  we  have  many  examples  in  Central  and  South 
America. 

Mr.  Thomas  Jefferson,  in  1816,  when  discussing  the  term  "re- 
public," denned  and  illustrated  his  view  thereof  as  follows:  "In- 
deed, it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  term  'republic'  is  of 
very  vague  application  in  every  language.  Witness  the  self-styled 
Republics  of  Holland,  Switzerland,  Genoa,  Venice,  Poland.  Were 
I  to  assign  to  this  term  a  precise  and  definite  idea,  I  would  say, 
purely  and  simply,  it  means  a  government  of  its  citizens  in  mass, 
acting  directly  and  not  personally,  according  to  rules  established 
by  the  majority,  and  that  every  other  government  is  more  or  less 
republican  in  proportion  as  it  has  in  its  composition  more  or  less 
of  this  ingredient  of  the  direct  action  of  the  citizens." 

Equity  Series,  n:  79-80.  July,  1909. 
Advantages    of   the    Recall.    Roger    Sherman    Hoar. 

There  are  two  possible  views  concerning  a  republican  form 
of  government :  first,  that  it  is  a  government  of  deputies ; 
second,  that  it  is  a  government  of  representatives.  Deputies, 
because  of  their  superior  wisdom,  are  chosen  by  the  people 
to  rule  over  them,  and  are  designed  to  give  a  government  of 
the  people  and  for  the  people,  but  not  by  the  people — a  benevo- 
lent despotism  under  elected  despots.  Representatives  are  de- 
signed to  give  a  government  of  the  people,  for  the  people,  and 
by  the  people  under  the  theory  that,  altho  the  populace  may 
err,  the  combined  judgment  of  the  people  may  be  more  safely 
trusted  than  the  judgment  of  individuals.  If  the  people  are 
not  to  be  trusted,  then  give  us  deputies  elected  by  an  aristocracy ; 
if  the  people  are  to  be  trusted,  let  us  keep  what  now  we  have, 
representatives  elected  by  the  people. 

The  people  are  to  be  trusted.  Then  let  us  see  that  our 
representatives  truly  represent  us.  And  if  a  given  represent- 
ative refuses  to  represent  his  constitutents,  if  he  insists  on 
putting  his  own  will  ahead  of  the  will  of  the  people,  his 
own  opinion  ahead  of  the  popular  consensus,  if,  in  other 
words,  he  usurps  the  power  intrusted  to  him,  and  ceasing 
to  be  a  representative,  becomes  a  despotic  deputy,  he  has  out- 
lived his  usefulness  and  had  better  be  recalled. 

Some  persons  consider  it  a  sign  of  strength  of  character  to 
be  "above  the  petty  clamor  of  the  rabble."  as  they  put  it. 
Would  these  same  persons  consider  it  strength  of  character  for 

22 


a  clerk,  however  competent  and  however  great  the  incompetency 
of  his  master,  to  refuse  to  run  the  business  as  the  master 
saw  fit,  after  the  master  had  distinctly  expressed  his  opinion  on 
the  subject?  This  trait  of  character  is  usually  known  as 
obstinacy. 

The  old  idea  of  popular  government  was  for  the  people 
actually  to  do  the  governing,  but  with  growing  population 
this  had  to  be  given  up  as  being  too  cumbersome,  except  in 
the  case  of  town-meetings.  The  good  result  of  this  change  has 
been  the  simplification  of  the  legislative  department;  the  bad 
results  have  been  the  growing  irresponsibility  and  unrespon- 
siveness  of  the  legislators  and  the  lack  of  interest  of  the 
populace.  Altho  it  would  be  out  of  the  question  to  return  to 
the  old  system  of  total  Direct  Legislation,  yet  these  evils  of 
the  present  system  can  be  partly  cured  by  adopting  the  In- 
itiative and  Referendum.  They  can  be  entirely  cured  by  adopt- 
ing the  Recall  in  addition ;  and  even  the  Recall  alone  would 
be  more  effective  than  the  other  two  together. 

Under  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  alone  it  would  be 
impossible  to  refer  to  the  people  more  than  one-twentieth,  or 
even  a  smaller  percent,  of  the  important  measures;  in  the  rest 
the  legislators  could  have  their  way,  regardless  of  popular 
opinion.  Under  the  Recall,  the  most  venal  legislators  would 
bow  to  the  popular  will,  for  fear  of  instant  removal.  The 
Initiative  and  Referendum  would  correct  part  of  the  results 
of  the  evils  of  delegated  legislation;  the  Recall  would  remove 
the  evils  themselves.  Under  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  the 
people  could  make  some  of  the  laws  as  they  saw  fit;  under  the 
Recall  the  people  could  force  the  legislators  to  make  all  the 
laws  as  the  people  saw  fit;  deputies  would  become  truly  repre- 
sentative representatives. 

Under  the  three  forms  of  Direct  Legislation  together,  the 
people  will  be  able  to  express  their  exact  will  on  the  more 
important  measures  of  the  day,  and  to  control  the  general 
trend  of  legislation  in  minor  matters.  There  will  no  longer 
be  the  selection  once  in  four  years  of  picked  men,  and  then 
the  giving  to  them  of  free  rein  to  disregard  the  people's  will 
until  just  before  the  next  election.  The  people  will  rule  all 
the  time,  instead  of  only  at  elections.  Initiative,  Referendum, 
and  Recall ;  but  the  greatest  of  these  is  Recall. 

23 


Pacific  Monthly.  17:  455-60.  April,  1907. 
How  Seattle  Got  the  Recall.    A.  M.  Parker. 

The  moral  effect  of  the  "Recall"  in  Seattle  has  been  ever, 
more  immediate  than  its  promoters  had  anticipated.  Citizens 
have  not  been  slow  to  recognize  the  increase  of  power  they 
enjoy.  Business  and  professional  classes,  as  well  as  the  entire 
press,  have  shown  a  readiness  to  propose  action  along  this 
line  with  respect  to  important  questions  which  have  come  be- 
fore the  Council. 

A  conspicuous  example  of  the  effect  of  the  measure  is  seen 
in  the  recent  submission  to  popular  vote  of  the  municipal 
ownership  of  street  railways.  During  the  city  campaigns 
both  parties  made  platform  declarations  that  the  question  should 
be  submitted.  The  Municipal  Ownership  party  elected  only 
two  councilmen  and  only  two  other  members  were  in  sympathy 
with  the  project.  The  remaining  eleven  were  personally  op- 
posed to  it.  Yet  the  ordinance  to  submit  the  question  received 
only  one  adverse  vote,  that  of  a  Councilman  who  audaciously 
told  his  colleagues  that  they  were  voting  affirmatively  only  out 
of  "fear"  of  their  constituents.  Seattle  has  no  other  precedent 
of  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  the  City  Council  voting 
against  their  personal  bias  to  fulfill  a  campaign  pledge. 

The  "Recall"  existed  in  our  government  before  the  Con- 
stitution. Under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  the  states  had 
the  right  to  recall  members  of  Congress  at  any  time  in  their 
term  of  office  and  to  choose  others  in  their  places.  *  *  *  1'he 
"Recall"  is  one  of  the  manifestations  of  a  present  tendency  to 
return  to  some  of  the  more  democratic  institutions  of  revolu- 
tionary davs. 


Arena.  33:  51-2.  January,  1905. 
Recall  of  J.  P.  Davenport,  Los  Angeles.     Eltweed  Pomeroy. 

Mr.  J.  P.  Davenport,  councilman  for  the  sixth  ward  of 
Los  Angeles,  outraged  the  opinions  of  his  constituents  by 
voting  for  a  printing  contract  giving  the  city's  printing  at  a 
much  higher  rate  than  other  competitors  bid,  to  the  Los 

24 


Angeles  Times,  and  also  by  protecting  the  saloons.  A  petition 
for  his  recall  was  circulated  by  the  Typographical  Union,  but 
on  being  taken  into  the  courts  on  a  technicality,  it  was  thrown 
out  by  the  judge.  *  *  *  Mr.  Davenport  appealed  to  the  courts 
and  Judge  Ostler  decided  against  him  and  in  favor  of  the  recall. 
There  are  three  points  in  this  decision  which  are  very  important 
as  establishing  precedents: 

First.  The  judge  decided  that  the  reasons  given  in  the 
petition  were  not  in  the  nature  of  the  charges  on  which  a  man 
is  tried  at  court-martial  or  for  his  removal  under  civil-service 
rules,  but  were  "general  statements"  "designed  merely  to  en- 
lighten the  voters,  similar  to  the  grounds  the  mayor  is  required 
to  make  when  he  vetoes  an  ordinance,"  and  that  the  Council, 
in  calling  the  election  under  the  mandatory  clause  in  this  re- 
call part  of  the  charter,  could  not  consider  whether  the  charges 
were  true  or  false,  but  must  call  the  election,  leaving  it  to  the 
people  by  their  votes  to  decide  whether  the  charges  had  suf- 
ficient foundation  to  warrant  the  discharge  of  this  public 
servant  and  the  appointment  of  another. 

Second.  The  plaintiff  held  that  the  recall  itself  was  un^- 
constitutional  and  inconsistent '  with  the  spirit  of  the  United 
States  Constitution.  The  judge  decided  strongly  against  him  on 
this  point,  saying  in  part  that :  "To  say  that  an  act  is  un- 
constitutional, without  pointing  out  the  particular  section  vio- 
lated, is  practically  an  admission  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
suggestion." 

Third.  It  was  claimed  that  "the  plaintiff  has  some  kind 
of  property  in  the  office  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  taken 
from  him  without  due  process  of  law";  that  the  public  had 
made  a  contract  with  the  officer,  under  which  he  held  the 
office  until  the  end  of  the  term,  and  that  a  recall  violated 
this  contract.  The  judge  said:  "The  authorities  are  practically 
without  conflict  to  the  effect  that  a  public  office  is  not  property, 
but  a  mere  agency,  which  may  be  terminated  at  any  time  by 
the  principal— the  sovereign  people;  that  the  incumbent  holds 
office  by  no  contract  or  grant,  and  that  he  has  no  vested  right 
therein." 


National   Conference  for   Good   City   Government.   1905: 
pp.   103-7. 

Municipal    Progress   in  Los   Angeles.      Charles  D.  Willard. 

The  value  of  the  recall  as  a  permanent  political  institution 
cannot  be  determined  by  one  experiment,  but  there  are  certain 
objections  that  were  offered  to  the  system  before  its  adoption 
which  our  two  years  of  experience  with  it  seems  to  have 
abolished.  One  was  that  it  would  discourage  good  men  from 
seeking  office.  Two  months  after  the  recall  election,  the  reg- 
ular municipal  nomination  conventions  were  held  and  a  larger 
percentage  of  good  men  entered  the  contest  than  at  any  time 
previously.  Second,  it  was  urged  that  frequent  changes  in 
the  personnel  of  offices  would  result.  But,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  is  a  pretty  serious  undertaking  to  secure  the  signatures 
of  25  per  cent  of  the  voters,  each  name  witnessed  and  sworn 
to  as  the  law  provides.  Moreover,  there  is  the  American  senti- 
ment of  fair  play  to  be  reckoned  with,  which  will  protect  the 
officer  who  means  to  do  what  is  right,  from  an  unjust  attack. 

Whatever  the  theoretical  disadvantages  of  the  recall,  or 
whatever  drawbacks  may  ultimately  develop  in  more  extended 
practice,  certainly  it  conforms  to  the  logic  of  good  business  ad- 
linistration.  No  set  of  stockholders  or  owners  of  an  important 
jusiness  enterprise  would  ever  put  a  manager  in  absolute  power 
with  no  means  of  deposing  him,  if  he  should  prove  unsatis- 
factory. Neither  do  business  men  choose  a  manager  for  a 
stated  term  of  years  with  the  expectation  of  replacing  him  with 
somebody  else  just  about  the  time  he  has  learned  to  be  most 
useful  to  the  enterprise.  Why  should  not  the  simple  logical 
rule  of  the  corporations  be  applied  to  the  municipality — let  the 
people  select  their  officers  for  an  indefinite  term,  reserving  al- 
ways the  power  of  recall?  By  this  plan,  the  efficient  man  con- 
tinues with  the  work,  and  the  inefficient  or  unfaithful  is  soon 
eliminated. 

Equity  Series.  9:  4-6.  July,  1907. 
Recall  in  Los  Angeles.     John  R.  Haynes. 

[An]  alleged  falling  down  of  the  beneficiary  of  the  Recall 
has  been  used  as  an  argument  against  the  virtue  and  usefulness 

26 


of  that  measure,  but  that  argument  would  apply  with  no  less 
force  against  all  officers  elected  at  ordinary  elections  who  had 
proved  recreant  to  their  trust.  That  the  Recall  is  to  some  ex- 
tent a  deterrent  against  the  consummation  of  vicious  legislation 
is  shown  in  its  threatened  use  in  a  scheme  to  give  away  a  valu- 
able franchise  along  the  river  bed  by  our  late  council.  When 
there  was  serious  talk  of  putting  the  Recall  provision  in  opera- 
tion in  the  case  of  several  members  of  the  council,  the  ordinance 
granting  the  franchise  was  promptly  withdrawn. 

The  proposed  franchise  was  estimated  to  be  worth  $1,000,000. 
The  only  Recall  election  ever  held  here  cost  $8,500,  therefore 
the  city  is  $991,500  directly  to  the  good  by  reason  of  the  Recall 
provision  in  its  charter.  This  is  only  one  instance  of  the  saving 
power  of  the  Recall.  *  *  * 

The  constitutionality  of  the  Recall  has  been  contested  in 
three  courts  by  corporations  working  thru  the  political  machine, 
but  it  has  been  sustained  in  every  court,  and  the  passage  and 
adoption  in  November  last  of  senate  amendment  No.  2  renders 
its  constitutionality  beyond  question. 

City  Hall.  12:   173-4.  October,  1910. 
Recall. 

There  is  no  danger  that  the  recall  will  be  abused.     It  will 
not  be  used  until  it  is  absolutely  necessary.     The  people  will  be 
just  and   will   be    strongly   inclined   to   stand   by   the  preced; 
election.     It  would   be  a   perversion  of  the  recall  to  harr 
faithful  public  official.     Such  action  could  only  come  from 
enemies  of  popular  government.     It  is  safe  to  say  that  it  wi- 
almost  never  be  used  for  "light  and  transient  causes."     But  it 
will  safeguard  important  public   interests  against  transient  and 
unfaithful  representatives.— La  Follette's. 

Congressional    Record.    46:    4171-2.    March    3,    1911. 

Representative  Government    Charles  F.  Scott. 

The  initiative  and  referendum,  subversive  as  they  are  of  the 
representative  principle,  do  not  compare  in  importance  or  in 

27 


possible  power  for  evil  with  the  recall.  The  statutes  of  every 
State  in  this  Union  provide  a  way  by  which  a  recreant  official 
may  be  ousted  from  his  office  or  otherwise  punished.  That  way 
is  by  process  of  law,  where  charges  must  be  specific,  the  testi- 
mony clear,  and  the  judgment  impartial.  But  what  are  we  to 
think  of  a  procedure  under  which  an  official  is  to  be  tried,  not 
in  a  court  by  a  jury  of  his  peers  and  upon  the  testimony  of 
witnesses  sworn  to  tell  the  truth,  but  in  the  newspapers,  on  the 
street  corners,  and  at  political  meetings?  Can  you  conceive  of 
a  wider  departure  from  the  fundamental  principles  of  justice 
that  are  written  not  only  into  the  constitution  of  every  civil- 
ized nation  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  but  upon  the  heart  of  every 
normal  human  being,  the  principle  that  every  man  accused  of 
a  crime  has  a  right  to  confront  his  accusers,  to  examine  them 
under  oath,  to  rebut  their  evidence,  and  to  have  the  judgment 
finally  of  men  sworn  to  render  a  just  and  lawful  verdict. 

Small  wonder  that  the  argument  oftenest  heard  in  support 
of  a  proposition  so  abhorrent  to  the  most  primitive  instincts 
of  justice  is  that  it  will  be  seldom  invoked  and  therefore  can 
not  do  very  much  harm.  I  leave  you  to  characterize  as  it 
deserves  a  law  whose  chief  merit  must  lie  in  the  rarity  of  its 
enforcement. 

But  will  it  do  no  harm,  even  if  seldom  enforced?  It  is 
urged  that  its  presence  on  the  statute  books  and  the  knowledge 
that  it  can  be  invoked  will  frighten  public  officials  into  good  be- 
havior. Passing  by  the  very  obvious  suggestion  that  an  official 
who  needs  to  be  scared  into  proper  conduct  ought  never  to  have 
been  elected  in  the  first  place,  we  may  well  inquire  whether  the 
real  effect  .would  not  be  to  frighten  men  into  demagogy — and 
thus  to  work  immeasurably  greater  harm  to  the  common  weal 
than  would  ever  be  inflicted  through  the  transgressions  of 
deliberately  bad  men. 

We  have  demagogues  enough  now  when  election  to  an  office 
assures  the  tenure  of  it  for  two  or  four  or  six  years.  But  if 
that  tenure  were  only  from  hour  to  hour,  if  it  were  held  at 
the  whim  of  a  powerful  and  unscrupulous  newspaper,  for  ex- 
ample, or  if  it  could  be  put  in  jeopardy  by  an  affront  which 
in  the  line  of  duty  ought,  we  will  say,  to  be  given  to  some 
organization  or  faction  or  cabal,  what  could  we  expect?  Is 
it  not  inevitable  that  such  a  system  would  drive  out  of  our 

28 


public  life  the  men  of  real  character,  and  courage  and  leave  us 
only  cowards  and  trimmers  and  time  servers?  May  we  not 
well  hesitate  to  introduce  into  our  political  system  a  device 
which,  had  it  been  in  vogue  in  the  past,  would  have  made  it 
possible  for  the  Tories  to  have  recalled  Washington,  the  cop- 
perheads to  have  recalled  Lincoln,  and  the  jingoes  to  have 
recalled  McKinley? 

American   City.  4:  275.   June,   1911. 
Menace  of  the  Recall. 

When  the  local  W.  C.  T.  U.  and  the  liquor  dealers  join 
hands  to  secure  the  recall  of  a  mayor  it  is  pretty  certain  that 
one  group  or  the  other  acted  without  carefully  weighing  the 
evidence.  That  is  the  great  danger  with  the  hair-trigger  recall 
system  that  some  of  our  cities  are  adopting — it  is  apt  to  go  off 
prematurely.  It  will  take  only  one  or  two  recall  elections  for 
inadequate  reasons  to*  make  men  who  have  reputations  to  lose 
very  careful  how  they  risk  them  by  accepting  elective  city  offices. 
It  has  been  hard  enough  in  the  past  to  get  such  men  to  be  candi- 
dates for  civic  office;  and  what  we  need  in  this  country  is  so 
to  readjust  our  city  governments  as  to  attract  rather  than 
repel  men  of  this  type.  It  looks  as  though  the  commission  sys- 
tem might  accomplish  this,  but  it  will  ultimately  fail  to  do  so 
if  it  is  hampered  with  as  easy  a  recall  system  as  some  cities 
have  adopted.  Even  if  a  man  successfully  defends  himself 
against  a  recall,  the  fact  that  a  small  disgruntled  minority  may 
make  his  term  of  office  a  continuous  election  performance  will 
make  the  whole  thing  obnoxious  to  men  who  want  to  be  ad- 
ministrators rather  than  politicians.  Moreover  this  system  will 
ultimately  play  into  the  hands  of  the  professional  politicians 
whose  machines  are  always  ready  for  service,  while  the  man 
they  are  trying  to  retire  may  have  back  of  him  no  organization 
that  can  be  relied  upon  in  such  an  emergency.  If  we  must 
have  the  recall  it  should  be  made  so  difficult  that  the  machinery 
could  be  set  in  motion  only  by  a  great  popular  uprising  against 
an  official  who  had  wantonly  abused  his  trust.  And  for  such 
emergencies  we  already  have  adequate  legal  recourse  through 
prosecution  and  removal  for  malfeasance  in  office.  The  fact 

29 


is  that  ninety  per  cent  of  those  who  think  they  want  the  recall 
haven't  given  the  matter  any  serious  thought,  while  the  other 
ten  per  cent  belong  to  the  type  to  whom  easy  change  appeals 
more  strongly  than  careful  selection.  It  will  be  a  great  day 
for  the  United  States  when  its  people  stop  using  their  city  gov- 
ernments as  playthings,  and  treat  them  as  seriously  and  with  as 
great  respect  as  do  the  nations  of  Europe. 

America.  5:   198-9.  June  10,  1911. 
Recall.     Henry  Woods. 

The  Recall  seems  to  vitiate  authority.  In  his  election  a 
ruler  may  receive,  it  is  true,  a  mandate,  that  is,  he  may  be 
chosen  on  his  undertaking  to  perform  some  specific  act,  or  to 
follow  some  general  policy.  But  this  does  not  deprive  him  of 
the  freedom  of  his  office,  as  regards  the  carrying  out  in  detail 
of  his  pledges,  as  well  as  all  other  things..  At  the  next  election 
he  must  give  an  account  of  his  administration  to  the  electors ; 
but  in  the  meantime  they  are  subject  to  him,  not  he  to  them. 
The  Recall,  therefore,  goes  much  further  than  the  mandate. 
Its  tendency  is  to  transfer  initiative  from  a  lawful  responsible 
superior  to  self-appointed  irresponsible  inspectors,  and  to  make 
him  .depend,  not  so  much  on  matured  public  opinion,  which 
he  should  always  respect,  as  on  a  momentary  popular  sentiment. 
When  it  succeeds  in  expelling  corrupt  officials  the  Recall  may 
seem  satisfactory ;  but  there  is  danger  of  its  getting  into  the 
hands  of  those  who  will  use  it  against  officials  unwilling  to  ac- 
cept dictation. 

The  Recall  has,  as  yet,  been  applied  in  but  a  few  cases,  and 
those  against  whom  it  was  directed  were,  to  a  certain  extent, 
taken  by  surprise.  A  political  party  needs  time  to  adjust  it- 
self to  a  new  condition,  but  the  resourcefulness  of  its  leaders 
is  always  equal  to  the  task.  The  defeat  of  the  Recall  of  a 
corrupt  administration  would  do  far  more  to  encourage  it  to 
graver  misdeeds  than  any  victory  in  a  regular  election. 


Century.  82:  624-5.  August,  1911. 

Recall  of  Judges  a  Rash  Experiment. 

Something  may  perhaps  be  said  for  the  recall  of  non-judicial 
and  elective  officials.  It  is  much  talked  of  nowadays  as  a  use- 
ful weapon  in  municipal  and  in  State  administration.  But  those 
who  propose  to  apply  it  even  in  that  limited  sphere  are  forced 
to  admit,  if  they  are  sober-minded  men,  that  it  is  a  sword  which 
may  cut  the  hand  that  seeks  to  wield  it,  and  that  its  use  must 
be  carefully  guarded. 

Thus,  in  the  general  law  passed  this  year  by  the  New  Jersey 
Legislature,  providing  for  a  commission  plan  of  government  in 
those  cities  that  choose  to  adopt  it,  there  is  a  provision  for  the 
recall.  But  it  is  significantly  hedged  about.  The  language  of 
the  statute  is :  "No  recall  petition  shall  be  filed  against  any 
officer  until  he  has  actually  held  his  office  for  at  least  twelve 
months,  and  but  one  recall  petition  shall  be  filed  against  the 
same  officer  during  his  term  of  office." 

What  does  this  indicate  if  not  that  Governor  Wilson  and 
his  advisers  perceived  the  danger  of  misdirected  passion,  which 
might  wrong  both  the  city  and  one  of  its  officials  by  removing 
him  for  an  act  of  duty  and  of  justice  at  the  moment  unpopular? 

A  system  must  stand  or  fall  by  its  application  to  extreme 
cases.  If  the  recall  is  good  for  mayors  and  governors,  it  is  also 
good  for  Presidents.  But  if  it  had  been  possible  to  recall  a 
President,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Washington  would  have 
been  recalled  at  the  time  of  the  excitement  over  the  Jay  Treaty, 
Lincoln  in  1862,  and  Grover  Cleveland  in  1894. 

Christian    Science   Monitor.   May   26,    1911. 

Possible   Abuse   of  the   Recall. 

The  most  serious  objection  to  the  recall  is  that  it  will  gen- 
erally be  employed  in  a  period  of  agitation  and  excitement, 
unless  measures  shall  be  taken  to  postpone  its  operation,  in 
all  cases,  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time  to  permit  public  thought 
to  pass  through  the  cooling  process.  The  argument  against  this 
is  that  it  would  enable  unsatisfactory  public  servants  to  take 

31 


advantage  of  public  indifference.  On  the  other  hand,  a  point 
that  appeals  very  forcibly  is  that,  if  the  people  were  more  care- 
ful in  the  selection  of  their  servants  in  the  first  place,  the  ne- 
cessity of  getting  rid  of  them  would  not  be  so  urgent  in  the 
second  place. 

Regarded  as  a  preventive  or  restraining  influence,,  especially 
in  local  affairs,  the  recall  has  much  to  recommend  it.  In  fact, 
there  can  be  no  very  serious  objection  to  the  principle  of  the 
recall,  viewed  in  any  light,  if  it  be  assumed  that  the  temper 
of  the  public  can  be  trusted,  under  the  circumstances  that  would 
most  frequently  call  for  its  use,  to  use  it  calmly,  judiciously, 
without  regard  to  personal  or  political  feeling,  and  with  nothing 
but  the  general  welfare  in  view.  In  the  last  analysis  the  ques- 
tion is :  Can  the  public  trust  its  sudden  impulses  as  fully  as  it 
can  trust  the  safeguards  that  have  been  provided  to  protect  it 
against  them? — a  question  to  be  answered  by  experience  rather 
than  by  argument. 

Independent.  70:  1135.  June  i,  1911. 
Recall  of  Judges. 

"It  is  the  old  question  of  direct  against  representative  gov- 
ernment which  has  been  on  trial  from  the  earliest  historical 
times.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  entirely  familiar 
with  it.  The  system  of  direct  government  had  been  in  force 
among  the  most  intelligent  people  of  the  world.  We  are  apt  to 
think  that  because  we  have  made  great  inventions  and  -  dis- 
coveries, therefore  we  have  immunity  to  violate  sound  political 
principles. 

"How  did  this  system  of  government  work  among  the 
Greeks?  They  did  not  have  these  baffling  questions  that  we  have 
had  thrust  upon  us  in  our  complicated  material  civilization, 
and  yet  no  man  could  be  long  prominent  in  public  life  before 
he  would  encounter  antagonism,  and  unless  he  bowed  to  it  he 
would  be  stricken  down." 


THIS 


DATE 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 


UWMM 


HECTD-Cty 


mum 


JUN25W 


MawMAYTnwo 


JAN  04  1993 


21-100m-7,'39(402s) 


U.U.  BERKELEY  I  IB 


C022S321U 


